Reviews for "Sociology"
Journal title | Average duration | Review reports (1st review rnd.) |
|||||
---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
(click to go to journal page) | 1st rev. rnd | Tot. handling | Im. rejection | Number | Quality | Overall rating | Outcome |
Sociology | 12.3 weeks |
12.3 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 1 (bad) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: reviewers argued that pper was not theoretical enough for this journal - this is more of an editorial decision in my opinion. reviews were very short and superficial, no real effort from 2 reviewers to give constructive criticism, editor could have offered a revise to sharpen the theoretcial contribution | |||||||
Sociology | n/a | n/a | 11.0 days |
n/a | n/a | n/a | Rejected (im.) |
Motivation: The exact wording: "Unfortunately we do not feel that this work is suitable for publication in this journal at the present time. " Alternate journal was recommended. |
|||||||
Sociology | 13.0 weeks |
26.0 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 3 (good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: Published twice on the journal. First time the editors were very active and up to their job; got the reviews back quickly as well as a reasoned decision. When submitted the second paper the editors had changed. The process was considerably slower and the editors seemed to have hard time in making the final decision. | |||||||
Sociology | 17.4 weeks |
17.4 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 3 (good) |
4 (very good) |
Accepted |
Sociology | 30.4 weeks |
30.4 weeks |
n/a | 3 | 2 (moderate) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Sociology | 20.0 weeks |
25.7 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 4 (very good) |
3 (good) |
Accepted |
Motivation: The editorial process was a bit slow but apart from this the process went smoothly. The reviewers comments were very helpful and I would submit to this journal any time again. | |||||||
Sociology | 6.0 weeks |
20.0 weeks |
n/a | 2 | 2 (moderate) |
1 (bad) |
Rejected |
Motivation: There was one very positive review of the first vesion and one negative. For the revision the paper was not sent to the original positive one, and sent to another who was strongly antagonistic. The editors made no justification of the decicion not to permit a further revision to meet the demands of the new reviwer of the revised version. |